IMPORTANT POINT
Grievous Hurt – Medico Legal Report – Dental Surgeon on basis of his own experience can visualise any injury of tooth with naked eye and declare it grievous without x-ray examination

Ramendra Jain, J.

CRM-24148 of 2015

For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the revision, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, delay of 38 days in filing revision is condoned.

CRR-2737-2015

2. Through this revision, the petitioner has laid challenge to judgment of conviction dated 16.3.2015 of the lower appellate court holding him guilty and convicted under sections 323 and 325 IPC by modifying the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 16.2.2013 acquitting him under sections 325 and 506 IPC and convicting him only under section 323 IPC.

3. Briefly stated, at around 8.45 PM on 6.9.2005 the petitioner along with 3-4 companions gave fist blows on the mouth and nose of the complainant, as a result of which, his tooth broke and blood started oozing out from his nose. On raising a hue and cry by complainant Sameer Bhatia, one Arvinder Pal Singh and Dr. T.P.Singh came at the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the petitioner. After investigation, a final report under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against the petitioner.

4. The trial court, on completion of trial to the satisfaction of both the sides, while acquitting the petitioner under sections 325 and 506 IPC, convicted him under section 323 IPC vide impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 16.2.2013 and released him on probation subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months.

5. The petitioner as well as complainant Sameer Bhatia filed their respective appeals. In appeal, the complainant sought conviction of the petitioner under sections 325 and 506 IPC and setting aside the order of sentence dated 16.2.2013 releasing him on probation. The petitioner, through his appeal, sought his acquittal even under section 323 IPC. The first appellate court, after hearing both the sides, modified the impugned judgment of conviction of the trial court and also convicted the petitioner under section 325 IPC, but maintained the order of sentence releasing the petitioner on probation under section 323 IPC, while dismissing the appeal of the complainant vide judgment dated 16.3.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, through his appeal, had sought his acquittal even under section 323 IPC before the first appellate court, who instead of doing so, also convicted him under section 325 IPC. Dr. T.P.Singh, who had, allegedly, rescued the complainant from the petitioner was a Dental Surgeon and thus, was a material witness, even named in the FIR, was not examined by the prosecution, which has rendered the entire prosecution case doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted by both the courts below. There was no X-ray report qua declaring nature of injury upon the complainant-injured as grievous, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been convicted under section 325 IPC because as per Modi Jurisprudence, x-ray report is must before opining an injury as grievous one. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments in State of Punjab v. Harinder Singh @ Raju 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 294 and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh, 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 184.

7. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the revision, being without any merit, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to follow:-

8. Admittedly, both the petitioner and complainant are real brothers. Dr. Gurpal Singh stepped into the witness box as PW4 and deposed that he medico-legally examined the complainant and found following injuries on his person:-

"1. Central incisor tooth of left side of upper jaw was fractured. Swelling was present on the upper lip with laceration inside the upper lip corresponding to the injury. Fresh blood was oo